Bring4th

Blossom/Minyator - your speaking of feeling "sadness" and "painful" for someone being banned, is a bit difficult to read when I (and Glow) were spoken to in a really harsh, aggressive manner.

Do you forget he called me "the most hateful person here"?

- and Jade has explained further that what went down with that member 'behind the scenes' was very intense in terms of him continuing to be very abusive... yet still you have tender feelings for the banned member; but share no consolation to those here that he abused?

I don't feel sad for speedforce - I feel he has been given the gift of honesty, patience, tolerance, loving words said to him, and after all that failed - the kindness of firm and healthy boundaries which could help him in the future - by letting him know what people won't (after much patience) tolerate.

This has been a kindness to him. He may have otherwise received this lesson in an harsh or even violent manner from people far less tolerant and loving than we here are.

I feel compassion for him - and had a pang in my heart centre when I saw he was banned (with a line drawn through the name) - but I also love myself, Glow, and forum members and mods - and I especially value the stressful moderation that we know NOTHING OF that occurs prior to such a drastic decision. So consideration for all of us is the focus imo - not just the banned member.

In fact - not banning after ongoing aggressive behaviour - is actually a disservice to that person as well as the forum.

Diana wrote regarding the lack of basic politeness in modern (western) society - and this is something I was alluding to in one of my recent posts also - (as it's so pronouncedly missing from modern millennial/generation Z discourse.)

Quote:I would like to add something I have mentioned before here. And that is the concept of politeness, which has gone out of popularity societally. Children were taught manners and how to be polite long ago, during the Victorian age for example.

Politeness can mitigate extreme conflict. Politeness doesn't have to repress. Practicing it can give one a moment to pause, and not succumb to impulsivity, which often causes regrets. Impulsivity can cause us to spew without rational thought or check.

So, instead of feeling as though one has to fit into an STO box of cheerful and loving discourse when one is triggered, it might help to just think of being polite. Just that.

Victorian politeness and morals had much that needed to be disbanded - but there was a basic protocol of polite (but honest) interaction that still serves communication between people with differing ideas very well.

hence B4th's first guideline:

Quote:1) The Cornerstone
The key governing principle of the entire Bring4th community, and all L/L Research social media venues, is the request that all members treat others with respect, especially when disagreeing. The participant may disagree to the bone with an idea without personally attacking the author.

(05-21-2019, 06:19 PM)Diana Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think you can separate political debate (or any subject matter) from spiritual growth. And I think, for some, and sometimes for everyone, there is no conscious awareness of any connection between the mundane and the spitiual, so things surface as a result of a mundane conversation. This way one gets to the connection and the possibility of growth through awareness.

Couldn't agree with this more. In principle, I don't have any problem discussing any topic here. It is a source of much mystery and wondering on my part how the mundane, endless details provide the structures we push off of effect forward soul motion. The most bitter disputes here have spiritual utility. They would not occur if they didn't!

I'm just pointing out that, unlike any other forum where stuff like politics gets discussed, here we have a unique perspective available to us. We all share a grasp of what's at stake, and it's a different view than the rest of the world, generally. We don't have to let these topics run away with us. Here we have the option to practice putting aside the compulsion to win arguments -- instead, we can even use our disagreements as opportunities for something deeper to occur within us and between us.

It is a possibility is all I'm saying. Even if you disagree deeply with one another, use it! Use it to grow, to forgive, to expand, to become the other. The opportunity is right there and it will never be safer and more educational than among us, your fellow bozos confusedly bumbling around here.

(05-22-2019, 02:55 AM)Relaxo Wrote: [ -> ]Blossom/Minyator - your speaking of feeling "sadness" and "painful" for someone being banned, is a bit difficult to read when I (and Glow) were spoken to in a really harsh, aggressive manner.

And you have never been both harsh and aggressive on this platform with anyone?

(05-22-2019, 02:55 AM)Relaxo Wrote: [ -> ]Do you forget he called me "the most hateful person here"?

Did that hurt you or you were simply outraged at the idea of being insulted?

If my memory serves correctly, there were at least 2 or 3 people who had a similar opinion, although it may have been worded otherwise or not stated explicitedly. You are somewhat strong in your view when you believe an opinion is invalid to be had.

(05-22-2019, 02:55 AM)Relaxo Wrote: [ -> ]- and Jade has explained further that what went down with that member 'behind the scenes' was very intense in terms of him continuing to be very abusive... yet still you have tender feelings for the banned member; but share no consolation to those here that he abused?

Again, did he actually hurt anyone or did he just seem angry at his every opinion being disminished as invalid and wrong to have?

(05-22-2019, 02:55 AM)Relaxo Wrote: [ -> ]I don't feel sad for speedforce - I feel he has been given the gift of honesty, patience, tolerance, loving words said to him, and after all that failed - the kindness of firm and healthy boundaries which could help him in the future - by letting him know what people won't (after much patience) tolerate.

I failed to see the patience actually.

(05-22-2019, 02:55 AM)Relaxo Wrote: [ -> ]This has been a kindness to him. He may have otherwise received this lesson in an harsh or even violent manner from people far less tolerant and loving than we here are.

I don't think denying everything someone says in an energy that is clearly outraged at their opinion is rendered kind because you end it with something that says you hope the hurt in him heals. Sounds like hypocrisy meant to invalidate further what he is saying, he doesn't even have an opinion, he's just hurt. I'd even venture to say that although it may make yourself look nice, you probably know it'll do little more than trigger him further.

(05-22-2019, 02:55 AM)Relaxo Wrote: [ -> ]I feel compassion for him - and had a pang in my heart centre when I saw he was banned (with a line drawn through the name) - but I also love myself, Glow, and forum members and mods - and I especially value the stressful moderation that we know NOTHING OF that occurs prior to such a drastic decision. So consideration for all of us is the focus imo - not just the banned member.

In fact - not banning after ongoing aggressive behaviour - is actually a disservice to that person as well as the forum.


Diana wrote regarding the lack of basic politeness in modern (western) society - and this is something I was alluding to in one of my recent posts also - (as it's so pronouncedly missing from modern millennial/generation Z discourse.)

Quote:I would like to add something I have mentioned before here. And that is the concept of politeness, which has gone out of popularity societally. Children were taught manners and how to be polite long ago, during the Victorian age for example.

Politeness can mitigate extreme conflict. Politeness doesn't have to repress. Practicing it can give one a moment to pause, and not succumb to impulsivity, which often causes regrets. Impulsivity can cause us to spew without rational thought or check.

So, instead of feeling as though one has to fit into an STO box of cheerful and loving discourse when one is triggered, it might help to just think of being polite. Just that.

Victorian politeness and morals had much that needed to be disbanded - but there was a basic protocol of polite (but honest) interaction that still serves communication between people with differing ideas very well.

Good for Diana. I would say that I found the people you bond the closest to are the people you can most freely talk with. I personally think adding a layer of etiquette would add a layer of fakeness. Maybe though it is more useful with people you are not close to.

If we want to talk about things Diana has said, she states multiple times she does not believe in reinforcing victimhood and instead reinforce self-empowerment.

(05-22-2019, 02:55 AM)Relaxo Wrote: [ -> ]hence B4th's first guideline:

Quote:1) The Cornerstone
The key governing principle of the entire Bring4th community, and all L/L Research social media venues, is the request that all members treat others with respect, especially when disagreeing. The participant may disagree to the bone with an idea without personally attacking the author.

Well I do not think he was actually met with respect either, maybe he was less in control when responding. Guess there can be a more subtle aggression and a more direct one and if he was a bit more cunning than sincere he wouldn't have been banned.

We tried to put speedforce on moderated status, after logging into the temper tantrum he had on the forums a few nights ago, where he made several posts intentionally crossing the line. We honestly have a lot of patience for this behavior, because if you read through the thread, you can see a lot of heated emotions. However, he indeed used different words and tone to discuss these concepts than most of us. His reaction to being put on moderated status was to send multiple PMs to the moderators cussing them out, threatening them, and overall just having an absolute meltdown. We decided that, now that we saw what he thought was an acceptable way to treat people that unequivocally crossed the line, we should probably just ban his account. Before the account got deleted, he created an OP where he detailed (22+ reasons) why he believes he is Jesus.

Again, if you all want to make a forum to host these types of engagement, go for it. If you are feeling pity, there is an act of service you can take: Create a new forum, offer a home to the victims who have been deplatformed. Be the change you wish to see. We obviously all could use more spiritual groups to engage with, because many people seem frustrated with the limitations that Bring4th has. I'm seriously confused why nobody has done this yet, because it seems like a much easier solution. I know it's fun to articulate where others are in the wrong, but we're never going to be able to put in the energy to be a perfect moderating team, and we're not going to significantly change our policies any time soon. Speedforce is the second person that I know of in my time that we have banned. If one poster every two years is an egregious use of our power as moderators, then I guess I have to take that hit to my polarity and hopefully will be able to balance it in meditation. We will never make everyone happy as moderators, but we have to err on the side of protecting people from potential abuse, and drawing a line in the sand is required to do that.

I doubt speedforce is gone forever, let's be honest. It's not like we IP banned him or asked him not to come back. If he wants to try again to play nice, he's welcome! If his frustrated potty mouth takes over again, we'll have to act upon that as we see it.

(05-22-2019, 09:23 AM)Minyatur Wrote: [ -> ]Good for Diana. I would say that I found the people you bond the closest to are the people you can most freely talk with. I personally think adding a layer of etiquette would add a layer of fakeness. Maybe though it is more useful with people you are not close to.

If we want to talk about things Diana has said, she states multiple times she does not believe in reinforcing victimhood and instead reinforce self-empowerment.

Absolutely true about victimhood and self-empowerment.

What I tried to convey, and I often fail to hit the mark when communicating something "not normal," is the idea that being polite can add a modicum of detachment in the sense that it stops you from reacting out loud impulsively. Politeness, though it can be, does not have to be fakeness; it can simply be a self-centering device. That is not to say you don't speak your truth. But if you start with the practice of being polite, it is a way to balance strong emotional content with a little reason. It gives you a chance to consider before reacting. After the initial cork politeness puts into the bottle of triggered emotions, you can then communicate the truth as you see it and be more reasonable about it rather than reactive emotionally.

I am more of an intellectual than an emotional person, but that does not mean I don't have deep emotions. I have deep compassion, deep feelings, and deep reasoning. It is not in my nature to speak lovey-dovey and unicorns and rainbows; that feels fake to me. Politeness is my way of giving myself a little pause so I don't hurt someone because I have been triggered or because the truth of a situation is obvious to me. It is frankly something I deal with—balancing truth with kindness.

A good example is during the last election. The people around me were all freaking out because Trump was this, and Hilary was the savior, and everyone was operating from this bipartisan nonsense (in my opinion). Politeness served me well in this situation. I was able to debate the subject with reasonableness instead of exasperation at what I thought was ignorance being spewed from otherwise intelligent people. I am usually detached, but we are all triggered occasionally. 

My last post was not as much about the moderation than how he's been responded to that created a built up. It's a bit like how you use his thread about being Jesus, or of a same vibration if I remember correctly, to turn him into a delusionnal not worth anyone's time. The only reason I've stated what I stated regarding love and wisdom is because of how many times you've repeated this experience is all about the heart and nothing about wisdom and how this forum is all about the heart also. This is not anywhere my belief and instead I believe it is contextual like it has been proven to be in this context.

Then again, I don't say I've agreed with his view on things but I do think he's been met with hypocrisy and I do believe it is a fact that if he was less sincere and knew how to twist his words cunningly he wouldn't have got banned despite probably having a worse intent behind everything he said. It's actually quite easy to be passive-agressive and insert a few lines to look good when your intent is void of something other than shutting down an opinion and maintaining a noble appearance. Like I told Relaxo, although it may look nice I'm sure it is known that it is a way to trigger someone.

Anyway I'm not commenting on what was right and what was not right, but I do see a lot of hypocrisy thrown around. It's being repeated that he was shown kindness and love, but I don't think that was the case.

It's not only about love, but a love coming from an understanding that each has a slightly different belief, perspective, and pain due to their own distortions.(love balanced with wisdom) I think it is o-k to share your belief and pain if it's in moderation and not forcefully trying to convince everyone of your own truth, an understanding that you cannot make another understand your wisdom. I feel as much responsible for everything that has happened, and I believe many others too. I hope we can be better students and teachers to each other in the future. I'm am sincerely sorry I couldn't react in a more loving way, and forgive me for meddling in as if I understand anything. I hope they will be back to us and that we can find forgiveness and understanding of each others pain. :-/

(05-22-2019, 10:18 AM)Bring4th_Jade Wrote: [ -> ]Before the account got deleted, he created an OP where he detailed (22+ reasons) why he believes he is Jesus.

I'm responding to this not to argue or question the decision to ban speedforce. Although as an aside, before you were here Jade, there was one member, 3Dmonkey, who was quite an amusing character. He became argumentative and temper-tantrumy and he was banned. But as I look back on that, the difference between then and now is so markedly different. Emotions and anger and are so much higher now as reflected in these forums. I can't help speculating that this is a reflection of the state of the world, or maybe the state of transition.

What I wanted to say was regarding speedforce thinking he is Jesus. To put this into perspective, I have engaged a lot in the New Age community over the last few decades. It is actually common to think things like this in that community. I had a psychic tell me I was Jesus's sister, and a well-known astrologer tell me I was of the lineage of Jesus because I have Regulus on my ascendant. It just isn't that uncommon for people to think these things. Couple that with a need for validation that many, many people have. And beyond that, consider wanderers who have a deep feeling they are special somehow, different, and they feel isolated, and want to grasp at anything that might explain their lack of fitting in.

I agree with Minyatur that it is contextual. By that I mean certain "craziness" is allowed while other "craziness" isn't. I won't go into what I think the crazy is here, because I'm too polite      

However, it's not my job to moderate, so I'm not arguing against any decisions made. I'm just doing what I love to do and that is express my thoughts, which is one way in which I even get to know those thoughts.

Quote:because of how many times you've repeated this experience is all about the heart and nothing about wisdom

If there is a place where I have said "all heart and no wisdom", I'd be interested in seeing where you think I've said that. My view of the philosophy is that wisdom comes FROM that heart, so when people advocate wisdom OVER love, I am skeptical. Unless I have clearly said this, you are fighting a strawman.

The reason I brought up the Jesus thread was not to say that he was delusional or imply he was crazy, absolutely nothing of the sort. My implication was that he seems to have some sort of megalomaniac tendencies, combined with other things he has said. Whether or not that is delusion is for him to decide, not me. I'm just here to decide where to draw the line on what is and what is not conducive to a healthy atmosphere, healthy of course being relative.

If a white man wants to identify with a Filipino woman, that isn't really hurting anyone, most of the time. If a poster on this forum comes here and basically says, I'm Jesus so you all must listen to me, and when you die you are going to regret being so mean to me, Jesus, (because he is Jesus, not because you should feel bad for being mean to anyone/everyone), well, that's not really constructive on a spiritual forum. I don't have a problem with him have strong resonance towards Jesus, it's turning that around and using it as some sword of power that starts to bother me.

L/L Research is growing all the time. We are a nonprofit which means that we are treading a thin line by allowing any sort of political discussion on the forums that are under the L/L umbrella. Also, any rando could come here and see that we allowed some person to very heavily imply that they are Jesus and therefore infallible, and that's just hypocritical towards our philosophy. As an organization, and one with nonprofit status, we have to have some consistency with the message we allow our "platform" to present. If you disagree with L/L's group/moderator interpretations of how to set an example of a service to others philosophy, then you should probably go to the top of the ladder, because I'm just a minion, and I've been given lots of support for my interpretations of the material. Not saying that I am infallible, hardly. Just that you seem to disagree with my interpretations quite often, far more often than say, Gary or Austin or plenum has. So if you really believe that somehow I am working some insidious "love without wisdom" message into what I'm saying, at this point it's no use in trying to correct me about it, because we've had the same disagreements for a long time.

(05-22-2019, 11:46 AM)Bring4th_Jade Wrote: [ -> ]L/L Research is growing all the time. We are a nonprofit which means that we are treading a thin line by allowing any sort of political discussion on the forums that are under the L/L umbrella.

That's an interesting statement. I'm curious why. Does it violate a nonprofit boundary or description of the nonprofit business?

(05-22-2019, 11:58 AM)Diana Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-22-2019, 11:46 AM)Bring4th_Jade Wrote: [ -> ]L/L Research is growing all the time. We are a nonprofit which means that we are treading a thin line by allowing any sort of political discussion on the forums that are under the L/L umbrella.

That's an interesting statement. I'm curious why. Does it violate a nonprofit boundary or description of the nonprofit business?

It's weird because churches sometimes discuss politics. That old Pat Robertson guy I think it was tells people how to vote sometimes I believe.
Though I'm not sure.

(05-22-2019, 11:58 AM)Diana Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-22-2019, 11:46 AM)Bring4th_Jade Wrote: [ -> ]L/L Research is growing all the time. We are a nonprofit which means that we are treading a thin line by allowing any sort of political discussion on the forums that are under the L/L umbrella.

That's an interesting statement. I'm curious why. Does it violate a nonprofit boundary or description of the nonprofit business?

Yeah, by definition, a 501©(3) nonprofit cannot have a political agenda, or they risk losing their tax exempt status. This is why the "Spiritual implications of politics and current events" forum is one of the few forums on the website that is only visible to members. In fact, we've had people upset before about being "deplatformed" because we moved a political thread to the much less visible (and not SEO-able) subforum, but that's just because we really can't let people get too carried away with promoting specific political agendas here, because the line to looking like L/L is promoting something by what we allow others to post here could be easily crossed.

(05-22-2019, 12:09 PM)IndigoGeminiWolf Wrote: [ -> ]It's weird because churches sometimes discuss politics. That old Pat Robertson guy I think it was tells people how to vote sometimes I believe.
Though I'm not sure.

The religious right certainly does tell their congregations how to vote. And I'm fairly sure none of them pay taxes.  

Having (in the past) attended several denominations of "fundamentalist" churches spanning several decades, I can say that I never heard a pastor discuss which candidate/party to vote for. The pastors were well familiar with the guidelines of their 401C3. The churches were definitely ones you would consider the "religious right".

"Your mileage may vary" :-)

Basically, as my quick google for more information just told me, anything that looks like the nonprofit is supporting a specific politician or candidate (monetarily or energetically) is what risks the tax exempt status of the nonprofit. It's still one of those slippery slopes, like most things. It takes extreme care and intentional language, but it can be done.

In an ideal word this prevents churches from promoting political candidates, but who do you think the IRS would really come after - the glowingly Christian and socially acceptable New Life Church (megachurch that holds 10,000+ people here in Colorado Springs), or the weird little niche group about aliens who calls the Jesus "Jehoshua"? Just because it isn't enforced the way we would like to see it enforced, doesn't mean that the law doesn't exist. The whole point of a 501©(3) is to be tax exempt for charitable, religious, or educational type purposes, and there are rules for what they can use their money for that qualifies as "tax exempt". Of course people exploit these laws all the time, but there are some puny attempts made, occasionally, to keep the system honest and ethical. However, they aren't going to take on the big guys who have a team of donation-funded lawyers on retainer when they could pick on some weird little "cult".

Also, there are 501©(4) charities, which CAN do more political stuff. Different rules, different paperwork.

Anyway, I know it's important to talk about, but it's also important to consider that Ra basically refused to talk about politics. Almost all of the time, it's a distraction from truly moving energy into the heart chakra. We can justify talking about it through a spiritual lens, but I think we should focus more on the concepts and not the specific players involved right now.

Quote:11.19 ▶ Questioner: Can you name any of the recipients of the crusaders’— that is, any names that may be known on the planet today?

Ra: I am Ra. I am desirous of being in nonviolation of the free will distortion. To name those involved in the future of your space/time is to infringe; thus, we withhold this information. We request your contemplation of the fruits of the actions of those entities whom you may observe enjoying the distortion towards power. In this way you may discern for yourself this information. We shall not interfere with the, shall we say, planetary game. It is not central to the harvest.

(05-22-2019, 12:10 PM)Bring4th_Jade Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-22-2019, 11:58 AM)Diana Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-22-2019, 11:46 AM)Bring4th_Jade Wrote: [ -> ]L/L Research is growing all the time. We are a nonprofit which means that we are treading a thin line by allowing any sort of political discussion on the forums that are under the L/L umbrella.

That's an interesting statement. I'm curious why. Does it violate a nonprofit boundary or description of the nonprofit business?

Yeah, by definition, a 501©(3) nonprofit cannot have a political agenda, or they risk losing their tax exempt status. This is why the "Spiritual implications of politics and current events" forum is one of the few forums on the website that is only visible to members. In fact, we've had people upset before about being "deplatformed" because we moved a political thread to the much less visible (and not SEO-able) subforum, but that's just because we really can't let people get too carried away with promoting specific political agendas here, because the line to looking like L/L is promoting something by what we allow others to post here could be easily crossed.

That's good to know. I find the idea stressful regarding monitoring it. 

All religions and philosophies promote something. And nonprofit or not, they all generate funds to exist. But I get the nuance here, and it seems to have more to do with semantics or what is declared as the purpose, rendering it arbitrary in a manipulative legal system. (I do have a basic understanding of the usage of funds in a 501C3.) And, I don't mean to suggest I know anything at all about L/L's particular situation.

I'm curious if there are parameters regarding dissidents, for example, discussing conspiracy theories such as not accepting the official government explanation for 911. (I don't mean to derail the tread, but I am curious about this.)

The IRS would go after the megachurch because there is much more money in it for them to do so. A big church can afford to pay a much larger fine than some little new age target, and to the IRS, it's all about the revenue from the fines. You disagree and that's ok.

I agree with you Jade about politics and this forum. In fact I posted about the futility of discussing same in another thread.

Also, I just want to clarify, I'm not actually paranoid about the IRS coming after L/L or anything, I was just offering another facet to consider in the, "Should Bring4th embrace political debate as part of its culture?" discussion, and adding to the larger, "What L/L is silently endorsing by nonregulation of forum posts" discussion.

(05-22-2019, 12:28 PM)krb Wrote: [ -> ]Having (in the past) attended several denominations of "fundamentalist" churches spanning several decades, I can say that I never heard a pastor discuss which candidate/party to vote for. The pastors were well familiar with the guidelines of their 401C3. The churches were definitely ones you would consider the "religious right".

I don't have extensive experience there. But a couple of relatives of friends who belong to fundamentalist churches were guided by the pastor (or whatever the official title is) to vote republican in two different elections.

(05-22-2019, 11:46 AM)Bring4th_Jade Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:because of how many times you've repeated this experience is all about the heart and nothing about wisdom

If there is a place where I have said "all heart and no wisdom", I'd be interested in seeing where you think I've said that. My view of the philosophy is that wisdom comes FROM that heart, so when people advocate wisdom OVER love, I am skeptical. Unless I have clearly said this, you are fighting a strawman.

The reason I brought up the Jesus thread was not to say that he was delusional or imply he was crazy, absolutely nothing of the sort. My implication was that he seems to have some sort of megalomaniac tendencies, combined with other things he has said. Whether or not that is delusion is for him to decide, not me. I'm just here to decide where to draw the line on what is and what is not conducive to a healthy atmosphere, healthy of course being relative.

If a white man wants to identify with a Filipino woman, that isn't really hurting anyone, most of the time. If a poster on this forum comes here and basically says, I'm Jesus so you all must listen to me, and when you die you are going to regret being so mean to me, Jesus, (because he is Jesus, not because you should feel bad for being mean to anyone/everyone), well, that's not really constructive on a spiritual forum. I don't have a problem with him have strong resonance towards Jesus, it's turning that around and using it as some sword of power that starts to bother me.

L/L Research is growing all the time. We are a nonprofit which means that we are treading a thin line by allowing any sort of political discussion on the forums that are under the L/L umbrella. Also, any rando could come here and see that we allowed some person to very heavily imply that they are Jesus and therefore infallible, and that's just hypocritical towards our philosophy. As an organization, and one with nonprofit status, we have to have some consistency with the message we allow our "platform" to present. If you disagree with L/L's group/moderator interpretations of how to set an example of a service to others philosophy, then you should probably go to the top of the ladder, because I'm just a minion, and I've been given lots of support for my interpretations of the material. Not saying that I am infallible, hardly. Just that you seem to disagree with my interpretations quite often, far more often than say, Gary or Austin or plenum has. So if you really believe that somehow I am working some insidious "love without wisdom" message into what I'm saying, at this point it's no use in trying to correct me about it, because we've had the same disagreements for a long time.

Since you're ignoring the gist of what I am saying, I'll restate it in a single line.

I am not commenting on the choice of moderation, but there has been a lot of hypocrisy and self-righteousness in most interactions with speedforce.

(05-22-2019, 12:42 PM)krb Wrote: [ -> ]The IRS would go after the megachurch because there is much more money in it for them to do so. A big church can afford to pay a much larger fine than some little new age target, and to the IRS, it's all about the revenue from the fines. You disagree and that's ok.

Not sure if you mean me, but I'm not disagreeing, just talking about it.

(05-22-2019, 12:42 PM)krb Wrote: [ -> ]The IRS would go after the megachurch because there is much more money in it for them to do so. A big church can afford to pay a much larger fine than some little new age target, and to the IRS, it's all about the revenue from the fines. You disagree and that's ok.

I agree with you Jade about politics and this forum. In fact I posted about the futility of discussing same in another thread.

For the IRS, the reward isn't worth the cost. They also would have to pay lawyers to fight against the large mega church. In the end they could lose money, which is what the other lawyers will be doing - dragging the case on in court as long as possible to cost the other side money. Anyway, it's just a speculative point. We can disagree.

To answer Diana, nonprofits can talk about political IDEAS, or even ideas that are subversive, they just cannot put forth endorsements or campaign for a specific candidate. The potential is that a candidate would use a nonprofit to filter campaign donations through so they do not have to be taxed. It's just one failsafe to prevent extreme corruption.

Besides, they have COINTELPRO to keep an eye on everything else us weird little niche groups get into.

(05-22-2019, 12:43 PM)Diana Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-22-2019, 12:28 PM)krb Wrote: [ -> ]Having (in the past) attended several denominations of "fundamentalist" churches spanning several decades, I can say that I never heard a pastor discuss which candidate/party to vote for. The pastors were well familiar with the guidelines of their 401C3. The churches were definitely ones you would consider the "religious right".

I don't have extensive experience there. But a couple of relatives of friends who belong to fundamentalist churches were guided by the pastor (or whatever the official title is) to vote republican in two different elections.

I don't doubt you Diana. My experience isn't the sum total of all church experience. That's why I wrote "Your mileage may vary".

(05-22-2019, 12:48 PM)krb Wrote: [ -> ]I don't doubt you Diana. My experience isn't the sum total of all church experience. That's why I wrote "Your mileage may vary".

Oh, okay. I get you now.

That's where we're missing the subtlety here. A pastor is likely to, for instance, go on and on about how evil abortion is, and then insist people go vote. They don't have to tell them WHO to vote for, if they can make it about specific issues to guide people to the proper candidates. A lot of them make it a point about how it is their "Christian duty" to go vote. Ugh, I just realized how insidious this is.

Actually, there is a whole sect of Christianity that is about birthing more children so that they have more political pull in the future.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiverfull

(05-22-2019, 12:47 PM)Bring4th_Jade Wrote: [ -> ]To answer Diana, nonprofits can talk about political IDEAS, or even ideas that are subversive, they just cannot put forth endorsements or campaign for a specific candidate. The potential is that a candidate would use a nonprofit to filter campaign donations through so they do not have to be taxed. It's just one failsafe to prevent extreme corruption.

Besides, they have COINTELPRO to keep an eye on everything else us weird little niche groups get into.

Okay. that makes sense. 

One must wonder though how effective the failsafe is when it comes to big money.

(05-22-2019, 12:50 PM)Bring4th_Jade Wrote: [ -> ]Actually, there is a whole sect of Christianity that is about birthing more children so that they have more political pull in the future.

Hasn't the Roman Catholic Church been doing that for centuries?  

(05-22-2019, 12:43 PM)Diana Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-22-2019, 12:28 PM)krb Wrote: [ -> ]Having (in the past) attended several denominations of "fundamentalist" churches spanning several decades, I can say that I never heard a pastor discuss which candidate/party to vote for. The pastors were well familiar with the guidelines of their 401C3. The churches were definitely ones you would consider the "religious right".

I don't have extensive experience there. But a couple of relatives of friends who belong to fundamentalist churches were guided by the pastor (or whatever the official title is) to vote republican in two different elections.

I wasn't in a fundamentalist church, but the guy who spoke was called the lead evangelist. Not sure if that's the same title.

(05-22-2019, 12:50 PM)Bring4th_Jade Wrote: [ -> ]That's where we're missing the subtlety here. A pastor is likely to, for instance, go on and on about how evil abortion is, and then insist people go vote. They don't have to tell them WHO to vote for, if they can make it about specific issues to guide people to the proper candidates. A lot of them make it a point about how it is their "Christian duty" to go vote. Ugh, I just realized how insidious this is.

Actually, there is a whole sect of Christianity that is about birthing more children so that they have more political pull in the future.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiverfull

I thought the birthing of more children was so they could have more money from tithes in the future.

I'm not sure either Indigo. Most churches refer to the head of a particular church as the pastor or priest and an Evangelist is usually someone given the pulpit to preach for a short time. An evangelist is usually a traveling preacher, with no permanent location.